Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The PAC didn't commit fraud The LLC's did. Thus they are listed.The judgement is against Trump and the listed LLC's, jointly and severably. There are no PAC's listed.
The judgement has no precedent, and it will be vacated as soon as an adult review the case.As in your case, it's a determination of likelyhood of succeeding.
And Trumps appeal doesn't appear likely to succeed (isn't based on precedents)
.
Which is why a bond has to be posted for the judgement plus interest, because the stay of collection, shouldn't allow the defendant time to disgorge his current assets beyond the reach of collection.The judgement has no precedent, and it will be vacated as soon as an adult review the case.
This is New York, so there's no telling how long that will take...
Really. Just give it up. The PAC is not a fucking insurance company.The PAC didn't commit fraud The LLC's did. Thus they are listed.
It's no different from the insurance company in an automobile accident not being listed in the complaint.
Go file your amicus brief with the court.Which is why a bond has to be posted for the judgement plus interest, because the stay of collection, shouldn't allow the defendant time to disgorge his current assets beyond the reach of collection.
If the PAC, like an insurance company is obligated to pay a plaintiffs legal costs, there is no difference.Really. Just give it up. The PAC is not a fucking insurance company.
Trump's LLC's are part of the suit because they were the entities that made the transactions with the lenders and insurers on those projects.
FYI, insurance companies are very frequently listed in tort cases, it is not the least bit unusual. It depends on the policies. My CGL policy committed my insurer to defend me against any suit brought against my company.
How about selling 40 wall street for a bag of magic beans to an associate.Go file your amicus brief with the court.
What's he gonna do, hitch up a truck to 40 Wall and tow it away in the middle of the night?
The PAC is a leadership PAC. It isn't obligated to pay Trump's legal costs, but it is not illegal if Trump uses the money that way.If the PAC, like an insurance company is obligated to pay a plaintiffs legal costs, there is no difference.
So it's like a revoke-able trust.The PAC is a leadership PAC. It isn't obligated to pay Trump's legal costs, but it is not illegal if Trump uses the money that way.
The Democrat handpicked hack judge Engeron should absolutely face disbarment along with Letitia James. The arbitrary judgements made by this nut job are so far beyond reasonable punitive damages, his conduct demands his removal from the courts. If you disagree, state why.
No, it's a special kind of PAC. Every member of Congress has one. They are slush funds.So it's like a revoke-able trust.
Republicans made it political. Using the federalist society to find judges with a legal agenda they agreed with. Like wanting to overturn Roe v Wade.First you'd have to deal with the huge corruption at the top, like Justice Thomas.... Then you'd have to change the whole system so that federal judges aren't part of the partisan political system.
You'll attack the Democratic justices doing things you don't like, but won't attack the Republican justices doing the same damn things.
A nonsensical attempt at false equivalence. Come on, you can do better than that.First you'd have to deal with the huge corruption at the top, like Justice Thomas.... Then you'd have to change the whole system so that federal judges aren't part of the partisan political system.
You'll attack the Democratic justices doing things you don't like, but won't attack the Republican justices doing the same damn things.
Carrying water and making excuses for the Democrat Regime. This is NOT the Democrats of the 60s. This is a hostile entity actively undermining American institutions and using the Justice System just like Stalin did nearly a 100 years ago. The only difference is Democrats don't execute their targets.Republicans made it political. Using the federalist society to find judges with a legal agenda they agreed with. Like wanting to overturn Roe v Wade.
Vastly different from democrats who chose justices that got huge republican support (bipartisan) support. Getting over 80, 90 or more votes in the senate. As opposed to republican justices passing by republican only votes. With no intention of choosing judges for their legal competence, But only for their ideology. As evidenced by a judicial nominee who even Louisiana Senator Kennedy pointed out the legal incompetence of a nominee.
Also to add, section (c) of CPRL 5519 is where the discretion is explicitly stated:Read it, the court is bound by CPLR
2. the judgment or order directs the payment of a sum of money, and an undertaking in that sum is given that if the judgment or order appealed from, or any part of it, is affirmed, or the appeal is dismissed, the appellant or moving party shall pay the amount directed to be paid by the judgment or order, or the part of it as to which the judgment or order is affirmed;
Undertaking; definition. Undertaking includes. 1. Any obligation, whether or not the principal is a party thereto, which contains a covenant by a surety to pay the required amount, as specified therein,
In short, they have to post an undertaking (bond) for the amount they would be liable for, if they lose the appeal, which would include interest and additional legal fees.
No, Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy are the ones who made the USSC a political football, starting with Bork. Prior to that, it was legal qualification only- political leaning was not questioned.Republicans made it political. Using the federalist society to find judges with a legal agenda they agreed with. Like wanting to overturn Roe v Wade.
Vastly different from democrats who chose justices that got huge republican support (bipartisan) support. Getting over 80, 90 or more votes in the senate. As opposed to republican justices passing by republican only votes. With no intention of choosing judges for their legal competence, But only for their ideology. As evidenced by a judicial nominee who even Louisiana Senator Kennedy pointed out the legal incompetence of a nominee.
You can see when republicans suddenly switched to overturning Roe v Wade by packing the courts. Justices for the supreme court routinely got huge bipartisan support, getting 80, 90 and even 95 out of 100 votes in the senate. And that was for both democrats and republicans. Suddenly that changed. Democrats continued to nominate bipartisan judges, while republicans nominated judges that passed by purely republican support.Carrying water and making excuses for the Democrat Regime. This is NOT the Democrats of the 60s. This is a hostile entity actively undermining American institutions and using the Justice System just like Stalin did nearly a 100 years ago. The only difference is Democrats don't execute their targets.
The operative part of that is may grant a limited stayAlso to add, section (c) of CPRL 5519 is where the discretion is explicitly stated:
(c) Stay and limitation of stay by court order. The court from or to which an appeal is taken or the court of original instance may stay all proceedings to enforce the judgment or order appealed from pending an appeal or determination on a motion for permission to appeal in a case not provided for in subdivision (a) or subdivision (b), or may grant a limited stay or may vacate, limit or modify any stay imposed by subdivision (a), subdivision (b) or this subdivision, except that only the court to which an appeal is taken may vacate, limit or modify a stay imposed by paragraph one of subdivision (a).
Yes, I saw that interview. unbelievable the vacuousness of that appointee. Our government is full of them too. I love the Kennedy videos available at You Tube. Here's one:No, Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy are the ones who made the USSC a political football, starting with Bork. Prior to that, it was legal qualification only- political leaning was not questioned.
John Kennedy does a great job of exposing political appointees' legal incompetence- one recent Biden nominee for a Federal judge position couldn't even say what Article V or Article II were about. She withdrew her nomination in embarrassment, thank God.
Another one had never heard of "purposivism", which is a fancy way of saying a judge will interpret a statute based on it's purpose vs. say a "plain reading" interpretation. She was completely baffled by the question.
Those are really basic things for a judge to know, and the poor quality of the nominees that Biden puts forward makes it too easy for Kennedy, but it's funny as hell to watch.
Yes, that's the same as saying the court has discretion. To continue...The operative part of that is may grant a limited stay
